data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b9a9e/b9a9e353c692a92cebf7d7422389899a22c3bdb9" alt="Wink ;)"
Alpha Zetta Z - Super_Hacker157@hotmail.com
No, but *most* programmers who use it don't understand enough about programming for speed. Like any other compiler, there is fast and slow ways to the same algorithm. Since most QBasic programmers were/are n00bs, they don't take time to learn, or too new to the language that they neglect programming with processing speed time in mind.St8ic wrote: Besides, Qbasic is slow and inefficient, right?![]()
You're correct about the idea behind writing new functions. However, even some of the very basic syntax of Microsoft QBasic relies on either MS-DOS, BIOS, and most definitely 16-bit code. The last one may not be a big problem, and MS-DOS calls and BIOS can be emulated where needed. You would then end up with your own MS-DOS clone in the background :p And I'd like to see anyone manage an OS API in QBasic. By the time this stuff is wrote in linked assembly code (and it wouldn't be just a QBasic code driven OS anymore!), you may soon find yourself wishing you just shot your foot because I'm sure sooner or later the OS developer doing this would realize how complex the situation would become if even possible to finish without running into some kind of major road block.bubach wrote: And about the BASIC-functions, you will have to do like in all other OS programming. Write new functions in for example, ASM.
I know... it stinks. :-[ What I do is make an EXE and start a copy of DOS under the D-OX OS framework. Auctly, thats how I made a project recently for School. (Just to inform the people: QB 7.1) I'm reading lots and making big discoveries, I got NASM (and the help file), DEV-CPP (and some free C++ book) as well as QB and (useless for OS-DEV) VB6.wangpeng wrote: *Sigh* You do realize that QBASIC requires an interpreter...and as so you really can't. I mean honestly...you can't. It is literally...impossible to code an OS in QBASIC...
The closest you could come to doing so is making a normal OS and coding your own QBASIC interpreter into the kernel or something...but as QB is alone you won't get anywhere.
There was a compiled version of QBasic, but you had to pay for it.wangpeng wrote: *Sigh* You do realize that QBASIC requires an interpreter...and as so you really can't. I mean honestly...you can't. It is literally...impossible to code an OS in QBASIC...
The closest you could come to doing so is making a normal OS and coding your own QBASIC interpreter into the kernel or something...but as QB is alone you won't get anywhere.
Indeed there was a language called QuickBasic which was compiled. The language itself was almost the same, without enough small differences though, that you could just compile all QBasic apps.srg wrote: There was a compiled version of QBasic, but you had to pay for it.
Not entirely true. I used quickbasic to try to learn assembly, and all it taught me was that quickbasic compiled programs are still not assembly. All I could see was some routine editing some values and jumping accordingly, with the routine being exactly the same in all "compiled programs". Tells me it's still being interpreted, but in a slightly faster way. Still sucks thoughmystran wrote: Indeed there was a language called QuickBasic which was compiled. The language itself was almost the same, without enough small differences though, that you could just compile all QBasic apps.